Topic: What Is "Driving"?

[Trainman]

A judge in Kamloops threw out a charge of driving while prohibited based on his interpretation of what is driving.

The issue was the fellow charged was found in the drivers seat of a running SUV that was parked in a Timmies.  He had a prohibition against driving at the time so he was charged with being in violation of this.

The defense argued successfully that he was not "driving" as the definition implies movement.  The prosecutor said he has "care and control" of the SUV but the judge said he was not driving, hence not in violation of his prohibition.  Case Closed   

Source: Radio CJNL Noon News

So, what is driving?  Care and control?  Or is actual movement required?

[footlong58]

How did the SUV get to Hortons?

It didn't just fall out of the sky with the person in the drivers seat...

[airbalancer]

 if he was on private property, how could he be charge

[quadzilla]

Interesting. I thought if you were found in the drivers seat while being drunk they could charge you even if the keys were not in the ignition. I know its a different scenario but still.....

Personally I think he should be charged.

[Trainman]

if he was on private property, how could he be charge

This must be a record, off topic on the second reply   

Don't muddy the waters anymore than it is already   

EDIT, you can be charged while on private property for criminal code violations and that is what is was according to the news report, so there!


Just to reiterate my question, what is driving?  Care and control or movement?

...

Personally I think he should be charged.

He was charged; charge was thrown out because the judge said he was not driving.

[tpl]

It would depend on the wording in the law and its regulations.  IIRC the impaired/dui stuff in the UK was effectively "care and control"  and maybe it is here too.  But if the driving while prohibited actually says "driving"

[The Mighty Duck]

The Judge sounds like an idiot.  The driver was in care and control of a running vehicle - should be case closed.  Letting offenders off on a technicality like "he wasn't moving" weakens our laws.  What if the vehicle was running, but stopped at a red light.  There's no motion - does that mean that nobody is driving?   

Fortunately, the language is much clearer when it comes to driving under the influence, so this kind of idiocy won't fly there:

Everyone who, on a highway or industrial road, drives a motor vehicle or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not, having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion of alcohol in his or her blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $2 000 or to imprisonment for not less than 7 days and not more than 6 months, or to both.

if he was on private property, how could he be charge

For the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Act of BC, a "highway" means

(a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,
(b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
(c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited,

So any parking lot that is not access-controlled is considered part of the road system, and you can be charged for any offense under the MVA.

[vdk]

Interesting. I thought if you were found in the drivers seat while being drunk they could charge you even if the keys were not in the ignition. I know its a different scenario but still.....

Personally I think he should be charged.

That is correct. If you're found in the driver's seat while being UI, they'll charge you for DUI even if you're NOT actually driving. All you need is the keys and a driver's license. Seems fair to me.

[articsteve]

if he was on private property, how could he be charge

These laws are province specific.  Even though Tim Hortons is "private property" it's a "public place".  Even though shopping malls parking lots are privately owned the Ontario HTA still applies because they are public thorough fares.

A house property is different.  Not to sure about a condo.

[safristi]

How aboot a F "ING"  snow BANK........................ can i make a DEPOSIT-ITION..............

[articsteve]

If you're found in the driver's seat while being UI, they'll charge you for DUI even if you're NOT actually driving. All you need is the keys

Even if you're sleeping it off in the backseat off the roadway somewhere the cops can still nail you.  You gotta make sure they can't find the keys.

[safristi]

..Go WEST young man.........................

[Wolfe]

if he was on private property, how could he be charge

This must be a record, off topic on the second reply   

A few years ago someone started a thread asking how long it takes for a thread to go off topic. IIRC the first reply was off topic.

[Turbo Bob]

It would depend on the wording in the law and its regulations.  IIRC the impaired/dui stuff in the UK was effectively "care and control"  and maybe it is here too.  But if the driving while prohibited actually says "driving"

AFAIK the UK now is "suspected of drinking and driving" due to a case where the driver parked up, jumped out and started walking down the street.  In court he claimed he immediately became a pedestrian and therefore was not a driver.  So you can get done for DUI if you are in the car, parked up, engine off, or just got out.  And rightly so IMHO...

[rrocket]

  So you can get done for DUI if you are in the car, parked up, engine off, or just got out.  And rightly so IMHO...

Awhile ago, a co-worker did something similar.  He began driving home drunk then realized he was too drunk to drive home (he lived in the county...45 minute drive).  So he began walking trying to hitch a ride.  Shortly after he started walking, a police came up to him and asked if he was having car trouble.  The officer quickly realized that he was drunk and promptly arrested him for DUI.

He got off on some technicality...something to the extent that he wasn't drunk driving when apprehended (even though his car was one the road and it got there by him driving drunk).  But he got off...however, he had a $15,000 lawyer bill in the end....

[tenpenny]

if he was on private property, how could he be charge

In NB, under the laws, parking lots are considered as public highways for accidents, traffic offenses, etc.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This sounds like something the Crown should appeal, unless BC really has flubbed the law's wording.

[rrocket]

Someone even told me..and it might be wrong..but in Ont. if you have a suspended license for drunk driving you can ride a riding lawn mover on your own property??  I know you can't ride jet-skis or dirt bikes.  But a lawn mower??

[Brigitte]

But a lawn mower??

There's always the Faint Hope Clause, i.e., the faint hope that simple Darwinism will kick in.   

I have so very little patience for people who willfully break the law, then use semantics to get out of taking responsibility for their actions.  How about putting some of that energy into using common sense in the first place?  Fack. 

[barrie1]

You cannot even drive a boat when your licence is suspended for drunk driving at all. I believe its absolutely No engined powered equipment at all not even on water.